2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 49,468,00 for enforcement fines against Plaintiff 1 on September 5, 2008 and the imposition of KRW 51,778,00 for enforcement fines against Plaintiff 2 shall be revoked, respectively.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Next, we examine whether the container of this case constitutes a "temporary structure" under the Building Act.

Article 20 of the Building Act provides that "Where a temporary building is constructed in an urban planning facility or a planned area for urban planning facilities, it shall meet the requirements under Article 64 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and shall obtain permission from the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by municipal ordinance, within the scope of the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree among three floors or less." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "any person who intends to build a temporary building for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as disaster relief, entertainment, exhibition, construction work, etc. in addition to the temporary building under paragraph (1), shall do so after filing a report with the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in accordance with the retention period prescribed by Presidential Decree, standards and

However, Article 15(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "temporary buildings for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as disaster recovery, entertainment, exhibition, construction temporary structures, etc." in Article 20(2) of the Act provides that "a temporary building for the purposes prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a container or a temporary building similar thereto, shall be used as a temporary office, a temporary warehouse, or a temporary lodging establishment (excluding a temporary building constructed on the rooftop of a building: Provided, That it shall include a temporary building constructed on the rooftop of a factory from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 201)," and Article 15(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "a temporary building subject to reporting falls under a temporary building prescribed in Article 20(2) of the Building Act, which is its structure or use (a container cannot be deemed its original office, warehouse, or lodging establishment for the same purpose, and where it is used for the same purpose, it is naturally deemed that it is used as a temporary office, temporary warehouse, or temporary lodging under Article 15(5)."

However, Articles 79 and 80 of the Building Act provide a corrective order to the owner, etc. of a building in violation of the Building Act or an order or disposition issued under the Building Act, and the subject of a non-performance penalty is interpreted to be limited to a building subject to permission. Therefore, the disposition of this case regarding containers of this case, which are subject to reporting, is illegal as against a temporary building not subject to imposition. In addition, even if a building subject to reporting, is subject to a corrective order even if it is a building subject to reporting, it may be subject to a non-performance penalty on the premise that it is subject to a corrective order, unlike a general building, under Article 80 (1) 2 of the Building Act and Article 115-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which is not more than 3/100 of the standard market value in the case of a temporary building, and the amount determined by Building Ordinance (in cases of a building not prescribed by the Building Ordinance, it shall be 3/100) depending on the type of violation. The disposition of this case is unlawful under the premise of Article 8 (1).

Meanwhile, Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree" referred to in Article 20(1) of the Act refers to the standards set forth in the following subparagraphs, and Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act provides that "the period of retention under subparagraph 1 shall not be a reinforced concrete building or steel framed reinforced concrete building, and the retention period under subparagraph 2 shall not exceed three years (Provided, That the period may be extended until the implementation of the urban planning project), subparagraph 3 shall not require installation of new arterial supply facilities, such as electricity, tap water, gas, etc., and subparagraph 4 shall not be a building constructed for the purpose of sale in lots as multi-family housing, sales facility, transportation facility, etc., under the premise set forth in Article 15(1) and Article 15(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, if a temporary building meeting the standards set forth in Article 20(1) of the Building Act, which is subject to permission from the competent authority pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Building Act, even if the first instance and evidence adopted at the above shall also be determined as unlawful.

(3) Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful, either in one appearance or unlawful without having to examine the remainder of the Plaintiffs’ assertion.

2. If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with a different conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling the disposition of this case.

Judges Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)